Residents challenge city over parking at Edgewood Plaza

Neighbors say city staff promised to review parking requirements for former meditation center

Cars drive along St. Francis Drive past the Edgewood Plaza construction on March 26, 2014. Photo by Veronica Weber.

Neighbors of the Edgewood Plaza Shopping Center are raising concerns that parked cars will clog their neighborhood now that a former meditation center will be used as offices.

The 13,688-square-foot former Maharishi Vedic Center at 1101 Embarcadero Road, adjacent to the redeveloped Edgewood Plaza Shopping Center, initially housed offices for developer Joseph Eichler. It has seen other uses through the decades, mostly as administrative offices, including for Round Table Pizza and for recruitment services and advertising, according to city documents. The meditation center, which had three staff members and held classes, did not use many of its allotted 16 parking spaces in the shopping center parking lot, city staff reports state.

The new concerns date back to the redevelopment of the shopping center. When developers proposed the remodel, they planned to reduce the number of overall parking spaces from 250 to approximately 153.

The City Council questioned planning staff about how the smaller parking lot would impact parking for the office building, which was not part of the redevelopment plan but which used 16 of its parking spaces. When city staff issued an Environmental Impact Report for the shopping center, they did not take into account how the meditation center might be used in the future, since it was not being redeveloped.

Residents at the time insisted that future parking for the building should be considered as part of the environmental study. The city requires one parking space for every 250 square feet of office space. The building has 10,300 square feet of office space (the rest is storage). As such, the offices should be required to have 55 parking spaces, residents said. They urged the council to reject the center's redevelopment until it met the parking requirements.

Curtis Williams, then-director of planning and community environment, told council members in March 2012 that an owner requesting a new use-and-occupancy permit for the building would be required to address parking requirements. A change would not be permitted until parking space issues were resolved, he said.

Now that assurance has been challenged by Amy French, the city's current chief planning official.

The building's new owner has stated his intention to lease the building to an office tenant, she said in an email to resident Jeff Levinsky and Duveneck/St. Francis Neighborhood Association President Karen White. But the new offices are not subject to additional parking requirements, since the building is only having minor renovations.

If the building were replaced, on-site parking would be examined during planning review and public hearings, she said.

Levinsky said French's statement conflicts with those made by staff in the shopping center's Environmental Impact Report. In staff's responses to the draft report, the city acknowledged a future change in ownership or tenancy could increase parking demand. But parking supply would be reviewed through the permit process, they wrote.

Levinsky expressed concern that the office workers will need far more than 16 spaces, especially considering how start-ups have done away with formal offices in favor of packing in laptop-toting employees around conference tables. If that were the case, worker's cars would end up on neighborhood streets or take up spaces meant for shopping center customers, he said.

"It will be the shoppers who will be inconvenienced, and they will go elsewhere. It would be jeopardizing the whole shopping center, and that would be tragic," he said.

French on Wednesday said in an email that "a statement about resolution of parking spaces is not a statement that says new parking spaces will be provided. I do not know what Curtis had in mind when he said the word 'resolution.' The office site has no physical area available for additional spaces. There is no proposal to modify the building footprint. There is no requirement for the owner to do so to accommodate parking on site  this was not a condition of the Edgewood Center Planned Community," she said.

A condition of approval for the proposed minor building improvements requires the city review a use-and-occupancy plan and transportation-demand management measures, due to the heightened sensitivity about traffic and parking in Palo Alto, she said.

It is actually odd that the Maharishi Vedic Center was allowed to operate there, given that it was not considered a permitted use, according to French.

The 1956 city ordinance under which the building was permitted required one parking space per 300 square feet. The shared-parking arrangement with the shopping center for 16 spaces is still in effect. Levinsky said he doubted that in today's real-estate market, anyone would limit the building's occupants to 16.

"People who buy these buildings buy with the expectation of maxing out the space," he said.

If a problem does emerge, Levinsky said he hopes the council will consider that they voted for the project based on a different set of assumptions.

"It's possible there could be legal impacts. I hope the council will realize this was not what they intended and will look at ways to rectify the problem," he said.

Comments

Like this comment

Posted by Resident
a resident of another community
on Mar 28, 2014 at 9:32 am

How many shops/stores are open at Edgewood Plaza? Apart from the supermarket and gas station the place seems very sleepy. Perhaps there is a problem getting retail interested in the area.

As for street parking, that is happening all over town. Loma Verde at Bayshore is now used for parking and with the design of the street and the volume of traffic on Bayshore, it is difficult to negotiate the intersection.

Midtown parking is spilling into neighborhood streets and PAFD using the street for lunch runs doesn't help.

Loma Verde outside Philz is another place where street parking in the bike lanes, particularly by PAPD and PAFD, makes for difficult driving and biking.

It seems that all these so called neighborhood shopping districts are used by people who are driving home and stop en route, rather than by people walking to go shopping.

If you live near a shopping destination, a new residential development or by new office development, then street parking is going to be a big problem. Welcome to the new Palo Alto.

Posted by anonymous
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 28, 2014 at 10:11 am

Hmm interesting. Monitoring seems in order. A Little street parking is expected in a thriving area, the concern is when it is excessive. It's like we know that when we see it.
As a local resident near the center, I wish it to thrive, and it appears to be doing well so far - The Fresh Market reported that location to be doing well. If there were a little spillover of traffic/parking onto the smaller streets nearby, that would be ok - that is expected. For Heaven's sake, here in Duveneck/St. Francis and other city neighborhoods we have gardeners with their huge trucks coming in and parking every day of the week. I would think that commuters would get off 101 and drive right into the center to get to these little offices.
I heard that Specialties (sandwiches) is going in there, hope that's true.

Posted by anonymous
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 28, 2014 at 10:28 am

While I can walk there, I guess most people visiting a shopping center expect to be able to drive and park there. If all the spots are taken by an office, however small, or the office workers opt to park on all the surrounding residential streets, that does seem to merit consideration. It isn't primarily an "office" center....

Posted by ChrisC
a resident of College Terrace
on Mar 28, 2014 at 11:32 amChrisC is a registered user.

After permit parking was instituted in much of College Terrace, JJ&F's parking lot of full of non-shoppers and no street parking there as well, because, in Palo Alto's infinite wisdom, it didn't put permit parking where small business customers need short-term parking. This was before the Garcia's sold the business, and lack of parking might have also contributed to fewer customers. The family tried to get something done with the city about the problem, but ha ha ha. I asked the subsequent owners if they knew about the parking problem when they bought it, and they said no, acknowledging it was a parking. I really like Fresh Market and I want to see it thrive. The new business needs to make due with 16 parking places, clearly marked, and the market will need to pay somebody to stand in the lot and police the use.

Posted by Sparty
a resident of another community
on Mar 28, 2014 at 12:47 pm

There is a school at the end of my street. Three times a day I can't even use the street for all intents and purposes since buses and parents are always making illegal u turns and clogging up the streets. Maybe I can get the city council make the school move.

It's a long shot I know. And NOT the same situation as Edgewood Plaza. Most importantly, a recent study showed nearly 95% of the residents surrounding the plaza have been there since 1954 or earlier--BEFORE the shopping center went in. So--it's easy to understand their concern. I guess I can't expect the same in my situation...the school was already there when I bought my home.

in addition, as the article stated , in this case with this building the director of planning at the time Curtis Williams , and his agents, Amy French et Al, made as a requirement of the PC zoning for Edgewood Plaza to go forward, a condition that this building could not be used by any business that would require more than 16 parking spaces…period

The issue is that there is no street parking on the shopping center side of St. Francis. So I can see how the local home owners might be a bit concerned.

As for the first posting in this thread...the shopping center is still under construction. A bank branch has opened next to the market, but all of the remaining space in that bank's building, as well as the next building over (not the office space on the corner) is still under construction. You can't put in more shops until it's done.

There will be a coffee shop/bar going in. Rumor is Starbucks... but that is only a rumor.

Posted by Mr.Recycle
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 28, 2014 at 6:12 pm

@Crescent Park Dad - not only is there no parking on the shopping center side of St Francis, there is no parking on the shopping center side of Embarcadero. And in the process of the remodel, they removed over half the on site parking spots to make room for the additional houses they are building on the Channing side. If the city had held out for one fewer house, that probably would have been enough parking for the meditation center.

Posted by Professorville Resident
a resident of Professorville
on Mar 28, 2014 at 11:25 pm

As I understand it, help may be on the way for the residential neighborhoods adjacent to the Edgewood Plaza. The Planning & Transportation Department is in the process of drafting a citywide ordinance for City Council review and approval that will enable neighborhoods impacted by intrusive parking to petition for a Residential Preferential Permit Parking (RPP) program.

At the same time, the City has convened a Stakeholders Group comprised of business representatives and residents from the neighborhoods adjacent to the University Avenue business district to develop a mutually beneficial RPP program for that area. That group has started meeting monthly and those meetings are open to the public. For more information about that group's efforts see:Web Link

Posted by Neighbor
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 29, 2014 at 12:20 am

So, Prof.resident, we should let things get really bad then organize for Residential Parking Permits, petition the city, with an uncertain outcome. Gee, so much trouble for the residents as long as the developer gets to maximize his profit now.
Don't prevent a clearly forseeable problem. As long as the developer isn't required to live up to the rules.
Hard to tell if you are serious and naive or what.

Posted by Neilson Buchanan
a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 29, 2014 at 7:50 am

It is time to use Conditional Use Permits. The City Staff and Council need to set standards for residential neighborhoods, write Conditional Use Permits appropriate for those standards and then enforce the CUPs. It is really a simple process. The City Council can demonstrate its neighborhood stewardship and allegiance to the Comp Plan in this situation.

Posted by Professorville Resident
a resident of Professorville
on Mar 29, 2014 at 7:53 am

Please don't shoot the messenger!

If you don't like what's going on organize your neighbors and get involved. Unlike the residential neighborhoods adjacent to the University Avenue business district whose streets are already wall-to-wall cars, you have a golden opportunity to act before intrusive parking actually begins to impact your neighborhood. Now is the time for you and your neighbors to go before the City Council as well as the Director of the Planning & Transportation Department to make them aware of the situation, to start writing letters to the three local newspapers, etc.

If I'm not mistaken, there are folks in your neighborhood who are already concerned about and beginning to work on the problem. Find out who they are and give them a hand.

Posted by resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 29, 2014 at 10:08 am

The residents are always fighting from behind here just to keep the City
from sliding further into a disastrous decline in quality of life,
character, aesthetics, safety. There is something so wrong here it is
shocking. The track record of the Council and staff is so abysmal all
trust is gone- it is simply a losing fight to try and stay even.

Posted by Mr.Recycle
a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Mar 29, 2014 at 5:03 pm

@Garrett - That would be totally reasonable given the current use of the site. But if the building ends up being used for tech/startup space, it could easily go from 16 people to 65-70 (assuming 150 sq/ft per employee, and all the storage space remains storage space). It makes sense to get in front of the issue.

That said, despite claims earlier in the thread, Fresh Market isn't doing well, and more workers in that building might help the market survive, which is critical for the health of the shopping center, and the good for the neighborhood.

Posted by Hulkamaina
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 30, 2014 at 9:32 am

The old Eichler building was also used by HP as a sales office and by Round Table Pizza as their HQ. Having been in the building when these three companies were there, I can say that there were a lot more than sixteen people occupying the place.

Posted by Joanne
a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 30, 2014 at 11:56 am

Many neighborhoods in this city are fighting for rights to have parking in front of their homes. We have yet to see the city step up and create a residential parking permit program for all of the neighborhoods that are impacted. This is just one more example of a big problem that already exists. The more this city builds the more likely it will impact more neighborhoods. It's a shame.

Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Mar 31, 2014 at 12:07 amHmmm is a registered user.

Yes...the "rights" to park in front of one's home - truly an entitlement, soughy by the very entitled. It seems in many parts of PA it's preferable to park on the street in front of one's home instead of the driveway.

Posted by Mr.Recycle
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 31, 2014 at 2:03 am

@Hmmm - Is Oakland entitled? They have a RPP. How about San Jose? San Francisco? Burlingame? Berkeley?? The constant guilt trip you throw at Palo Alto is really tired. Cities are "entitled" to set parking policies, including residential parking permits to control undesirable overflow parking.

Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 31, 2014 at 9:27 am

We have friends who live in an area where Residents have to pay for parking permits for their street parking. Practically every home has turned their front yards into large parking lots with gravel or similar. Some even rent out space to local employees. There is hardly a green area and the only flowers/bushes are in pots or hanging baskets although there are not many of those. The place looks dreadful in my opinion. And, there are few cars parking on the street. When we visit, there is room for us to park in front of the house off road.

I am sure that the residents here have mixed views about parking permits.

Posted by Aquamarine
a resident of Stanford
on Mar 31, 2014 at 10:41 am

Recycle - yeah, the guilt you accuse Hmmm throwing is rather like the guilt Palo Alto constantly throws at Stanford. Hmmm is right about so many residents not parking in their driveways. I think it makes people more territorial.

How will the Edgewood landlord enforce parking at the shopping center? How about a city-run valet parking service in some areas, as Redwood City has? Why doesn't Palo Alto use pay station parking meters?

Posted by Neighbor
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 31, 2014 at 11:41 am

Stanford is bringing a project to the ARB this Thursday morning at 2500 ElCamino for 70 BMR apts, with reduced parking, 145 spaces where 181 are required. More zoning breakage.
They make the standard excuses, low income people have fewer cars, it's near the bus etc. The ARB architects LOVE big developments, so expect them to love this one.
See the April 2 agenda at Web Link

Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Mar 31, 2014 at 1:46 pmHmmm is a registered user.

Recycle - PA is fully deserving of the criticism, and more. Either you're electing the wrong city leaders, or you're getting exactly what you've asked for - development w/out the requisite important parts that make the developer more responsible, such as parking.

People are constantly decrying the loss of PA's character. As a native who lived there for many years, I understand that concern and upset. However, PA lost its ability to be a smaller city filled with character and charm *decades* ago when is smugly played up its Sili Valley mystique and further groomed its relationship with Stanford. It's completely okay if that's what you wanted, but it sounds like many residents didn't. [Portion removed.]
My observation that residents feel entitled to deciding who parks in front of their house stands. Perhaps the relationship between that attitude, who you all elect and who ends up doing business w/your city is better examined than defended.

Posted by anonymous
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 31, 2014 at 2:11 pm

I agree with Hmmm up to a point.
Insofar as local politicians letting developers get away w/o appropriate parking...hey, this is INTENTIONAL by the politicians, irrespective of the developer. Trying to manipulate the little guy/gal into somehow "having to" take public transit (what a joke here!) or bike around (got time for that??)(while likely, hypocritically, these officials are driving a single person luxury car at their own convenience...)
The SV mystique is no mystique it's called VC money. Money gets ya a lot, including overpriced status vehicles.

Posted by Mr.Recycle
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 31, 2014 at 4:39 pm

Yes, Hmmm is right that Palo Alto brought these problems on itself through greed, stupidity, lack of foresight, and probably a fair amount of corruption. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try make things better, or at least slow the decline.

Posted by Aquamarine
a resident of Stanford
on Mar 31, 2014 at 11:15 pm

This can't affect that many residents, can it? If not many, does that make it harder or easier to resolve?

What level of oversight is necessary to ensure that elected officials themselves ensure that developers provide parking? How sneaky is this part of the process, or how much collision actually occurs? I ask because of course the way that this all happens at Stanford is different. Or, maybe not.

Posted by OPar
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 2, 2014 at 3:54 pm

I'm with the residents on this one. I think they've been pretty reasonable throughout the redevelopment process--and I think they've got a right to be concerned about having their street parking clogged up. As it is, I'm sure they already get spillover from Embarcadero.

So, why isn't there any parking on the shopping center side of the streets? Is that at all doable?

As for Loma Verde at Bayshore--yes, blame the city. They pushed through the townhouse development with inadequate parking and then, some years later, blocked Girls Middle School from moving into a site near the Baylands on Embarcadero because they didn't want to lose the possible tax revenues from a building in that area. So GMS ended up on West Bayshore where there's not much parking.

Posted by OPar
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 2, 2014 at 3:54 pm

I'm with the residents on this one. I think they've been pretty reasonable throughout the redevelopment process--and I think they've got a right to be concerned about having their street parking clogged up. As it is, I'm sure they already get spillover from Embarcadero.

So, why isn't there any parking on the shopping center side of the streets? Is that at all doable?

As for Loma Verde at Bayshore--yes, blame the city. They pushed through the townhouse development with inadequate parking and then, some years later, blocked Girls Middle School from moving into a site near the Baylands on Embarcadero because they didn't want to lose the possible tax revenues from a building in that area. So GMS ended up on West Bayshore where there's not much parking.

Posted by OPar
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 2, 2014 at 3:55 pm

I'm with the residents on this one. I think they've been pretty reasonable throughout the redevelopment process--and I think they've got a right to be concerned about having their street parking clogged up. As it is, I'm sure they already get spillover from Embarcadero.

So, why isn't there any parking on the shopping center side of the streets? Is that at all doable?

As for Loma Verde at Bayshore--yes, blame the city. They pushed through the townhouse development with inadequate parking and then, some years later, blocked Girls Middle School from moving into a site near the Baylands on Embarcadero because they didn't want to lose the possible tax revenues from a building in that area. So GMS ended up on West Bayshore where there's not much parking.

"So, why isn't there any parking on the shopping center side of the streets? Is that at all doable?"

The street current features bike lanes on both sides and parking on the residential side of the street. There is not enough room to add parking on the other side of the street...unless you eliminate both bike lanes and re-stripe the center line. I would expect the bike community to object to that idea...

Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Apr 5, 2014 at 1:49 pmHmmm is a registered user.

If PA residents want to control the public streets, because you can't trust your elected officials and the developers to protect what you consider your interests on public roads, then maybe some grassroots organizing will work.

Trying to track the intricacies of parking issues w/development and redevelopment isn't easy. But creating an advocacy group to lobby for better parking solutions where development/redevelopment is happening might be a good solution.

I find your current trend in thinking that your property rights don't stop at your property lines deeply disturbing, and I am not the only one. My opinion doesn't matter, except that as a close-by former resident who is forced to use your streets and do business in your town, you may want to consider my words as possibly representative of a reasonable perspective. Avoid pitting yourselves in the "us vs. them" game that you did in Crescent Park, ensuring that as stakeholders you have a consistent voice. In truth, it's "us vs. us", and you can use that to your advantage.

On a personal, completely sympathetic note, this is my experience living in a neighborhood now overrun w/cars, and the requisite noise and the decreased quality of life that comes with all of it: Whatever your income level, age, or background, you have a right to quiet enjoyment of your home. You may not have a right to say who parks on your streets, but if the character of your neighborhood is changing significantly due to development, an organized voice of stakeholders canNOT be dismissed if elected officials wish to be re-elected. These future office workers who bring money into your area aren't the enemy, but they can also be conditioned to be considerate if they are to be good tenants. Being mindful that they're in a residential neighborhood is important, and that message can be expressed respectfully to them. For example, a small group of residents with good interpersonal skills might wisely approach the realtor or whoever to deliver good wishes and a request for reciprocal respect so that your quality of life isn't eroded by new tenants of the shopping center. Why people walking to and from their vehicles always love being loud remains a mystery to me, but perhaps they can be trained to behave otherwise. As for the larger issues that you all (and the rest of us who deal w/your city) are faced with re parking, I can personally attest to the power of the people - sometimes it can even best the power of money.

Posted by EIR Violation
a resident of Fairmeadow
on Apr 5, 2014 at 3:27 pm

My reading of events is that legally construction should be halted at the center until a new EIR is completed. This seems very similar legally to building a damn and finding out that your assumptions about the wild life are incorrect. In this case, the EIR was passed base on the use of the office building not requiring more parking. As part of the PC zoning, if it now requires more parking, construction should be halted. It may be that there is a need for more parking space.

Posted by palo alto resident
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Apr 5, 2014 at 4:58 pm

@EIR violation, I don't think it would be fair to halt construction at the shopping center based on potential parking problems caused by a building owned by someone else. The office building should solve the parking issues, not the shopping center.

Posted by Mr.Recycle
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Apr 5, 2014 at 10:03 pm

And on a more positive note, that whole plaza and office was a horrible eyesore and detriment to the neighborhood for decades. The upside of the remodel far outweighs the downside of the parking issue. Just keep pressing the council for a citywide opt-in parking permit program.

Don't miss out on the discussion!Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online.
Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information
and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.